Arizona schools proposing drafts to remove the word "evolution" from science books

[RandomGuy]

Oh, don't be so pedantic.

[RandomGuy]

i dont appreciate that aspersion

I think he is referring to spurtacular trying to apply that to me (and failing rather spectacularly) in some thread or another. It was funny.

[spurraider21]

I think he is referring to spurtacular trying to apply that to me (and failing rather spectacularly) in some thread or another. It was funny.

chooch and i have long made fun of spurt's thesaurus use. i was piling on.

[Blake]

chooch and i have long made fun of spurt's thesaurus use. i was piling on.

Indubitably

[Blake]

And you know it's not, somehow? (BTW, 6,000 is the more accepted #).

derp is a young earther.

Of course.

[Blake]

This guy was chosen by Douglas to help decide how evolution should be taught:

"...The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

"Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times' Joseph Flaherty.

Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona's soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution....."

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...culum-10820376

[RandomGuy]

This guy was chosen by Douglas to help decide how evolution should be taught:

"...The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

"Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times' Joseph Flaherty.

Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona's soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution....."

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...culum-10820376

It takes some serious dumbasserty to think that Noah's ark was a real story.

[RandomGuy]

so while i still maintain that this is accurate...



i find myself with some spare time so i'm going to go through your huffington post blog piece


so im gonna go ahead and say that's pretty generous.

a) the bible doesn't really claim there was a big bang. it says he created heaven and earth. nowhere does it say it expanded out of a super dense/hot singularity. basically this is saying "we know the universe exists, therefore genesis is accuarate." that's kinda weak

b) i dont know that scientists call it an "unimaginable power" or where the author is getting that from. rather, i would point to what carl sagan said.

- if we decide that the answer of "where did god come from" is an unanswerable question, why not just skip a step and say the beginning of the universe is an unanswerable question
- if we decide that god always existed, why not skip a step and decide that the universe (or the pre-big bang material) always existed

c) calling the big bang an "unimaginable gigantic explosion" isn't really an accurate representation of the theory. "big bang" was a name that was given to mock the idea of an original expansion... the big bang is much better described as an expansion than an explosion. that's more pop culture than science (the notion that it was a big eruption/explosion)


again, this is basically saying that because we have light, the bible is accurate. the same can be said of any writing that ever mentions light in any way.


a) this is a good example of something demonstrably wrong. the "firmament" is supposed to be some dome-globe type thing around the earth that separates us from "the waters above" aka heaven. except we know there isn't water above. the blue sky is a reflective property from what is on earth. we aren't standing below some giant ocean, protected by a big dome

b) even before the bible, we knew that we had oceaans and land in between. so the fact that the bible says we will have water and land in between isn't some astounding claim.



blog acknowledges that this is incorrect



the bolded part here is pretty laughable mental gymnastics tbh

i think they know damn well that this is also incorrect but are trying to make some incredible contortions to try to go back and make it all fit. not to mention, the explanation requires the theory of evolution to be true, which sort of defeats the purpose of the discussion in this thread

this one is actually on point. life began in the sea.



now we are confusing insects with birds? naw, we can't buy that. the divine wouldn't mess that up.

we already established this above. life in the sea came first. why are we giving credit twice for the same claim?

although nobody can ever define what a biblical "kind" is. it's a frustrating conversation


i'll just leave it at the bolded

we all know that humans are running the show... i dont think we needed a divine text to tell us that. and "domination over the other animals" isn't really a scientific idea either. humans still get crapped on by germs every now and again, too


zactly

and then the article recaps. not sure how this was supposed to be convincing.

Props. That was comprehensive, and took some time to do.

I haven't finished scrolling, but am guessing it will be met by either ignoring or [smiley][derision]/[derision][smiley]

[RandomGuy]

It's (theoretically) the origin of mankind, no?

Evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time.

That's it. Species arise and go away.

Your response here was to someone talking about the "origin of life" not the origin of humans. That is either you not understanding, or you understanding, but changing the subject for some reason.